Well, I wasn't going to take it any further, but I replied to your email, without reading Paul's. I have no interest in taking the thread further, my email stands on it's own, anything after that is just a waste of time.
Brad ----- Original Message ----- From: "Rob Brigham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2002 7:36 AM Subject: RE: SMCP FA 20-35mm f/4 AL or the FA* 24mm f/2 AL WAS --Re:WideangleDilemmas > Sorry, I could just see it going that way. > > This is the trouble with email - you don't always see things when you > type them in the same way that someone else reads them. I have seen > other boards where the slightest mention of narrow-mindedness caused > absolute mayhem. I realise you didn't specifically call Paul > narrow-minded, but as he had already (arguably) read too much into an > earlier statement I was concerned as to what the outcome of your message > might be. So called 'equal opportunity' emails just drag the whole > thing out... > > I didn't and don't mean to have a go or blame anyone by this, just > spotted a thread which I could see degenerating shortly and wanted to > nip it in the bud. > > Rob > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Brad Dobo [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: 20 November 2002 12:01 > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: Re: SMCP FA 20-35mm f/4 AL or the FA* 24mm f/2 AL > > WAS --Re:WideangleDilemmas > > > > > > Hey, > > > > Actually, I didn't think this was one of those problem > > threads that would get out of hand!!!! > > > > For the record, it was hardly aggressive IMHO, or it was an > > equal opportunity email. I laughed at myself and praised > > folks that make $$$ with Pentax. > > > > I said my piece, I'm not going to go on about it, it's > > actually not Paul or myself, but others if anyone? > > > > It's darn cool in this area at the moment, snow turned to > > rain to freezing rain :( > > > > Regard, > > > > Brad > > > > >
